~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

Tag Archives: Trump

Democracy, of all systems of government, rests most on the presumption of legitimacy. That is not to say that all governments do not so rest, but there is a crucial difference between the sort of legitimacy a Monarchy has and one a democratically elected leader has; although there is also a crucial similarity. Even a monarch who claimed to rule by divine right actually ruled only as long as his rule was tolerable. So, King John, like his Norman/Angevin predecessors, ruled by right of inheritance from William the Conqueror. In theory there were no limitations on his power; but the way he used that theory created the conditions in which such limitations were formulated and, ultimately, imposed upon him. This was done not by ‘the people’, but by the people who mattered – the nobles and the Church. None of John’s successors was able to turn the clock back. Where, in continental Europe, the fledgling parliaments of France and Spain were stifled, in England the attempt to do so led Charles I to his execution. Voltaire once defined Russian Tsarism as ‘autocracy modified by assassination’, and something similar, if less dramatic is true of all systems of government. If the governed find them intolerable, ways will be found to depose bad rulers.

In democracies legitimacy is assured through electoral processes. Those processes will throw up results that at least half the electorate will not have approved, either because some will have voted for the losing side, or others could not be bothered voting. This often leads to some bitterness and silliness. The whole ‘birther’ thing with Obama would be one example. But one never saw those pursing that line demonstrating in Washington, blacking access to the inauguration or calling for the results of the election to be cancelled, or for ‘direct action’ to thwart the outcome of the electoral process. For that, we had to wait for an educated liberal elite to lose the election to someone whose views they found so abhorrent that they took it upon themselves to advise the electorate that in view of their silly error, they, the elite, needed to set things right. Since it was, in part, this attitude which led to the result they deplore, this seems the sort of error you need to be extremely smart to commit.

It is very hard to see how, next time a liberal President is elected, his supporters can criticise their opponents for protesting. On a very basic level, Trump’s critics are giving their opponents a lesson in how, when their turn comes, they can stoke the fires of division. To respond, as I know some will do, with the retort that ‘Trump started it’ is, I fear, childish. If you consider yourself part of an elite so much better able to judge who should rule your country, you should demonstrate that by being smart enough to accept the democratic verdict and work in the usual manner to ensure your side does better next time. Both with Trump and with Brexit, the other side fought very poor campaigns and made their cases badly. It would, of course, take courage to admit that and it would take time and energy to ensure it doesn’t happen again – and my advice to those on the losing side (such as myself) would be to up their game and stop whining.

Like this:

This last year has been one which proved the truth of Lord Melbourne’s dictum: “What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.” At the start of the year you could have obtained excellent odds against a Brexit win and a Trump win from any book-makers in the land; you’d probably have cleaned up monetarily if you’d double-up on that and gone for both. The puzzlement of the liberal elites in our society is exceeded only by their anger at the uneducated folk who brought about this unprecedented state of affairs. Very occasionally, one reads pieces which don’t take the view that the elite itself is a hapless victim, and which acknowledge that the sort of disdain being shown for ‘the people’ in some quarters is a part of the problem. Being lectured on ‘white, male privilege’ by a well-educated woman of colour earning thrice what you earn, may be something many can put up with, but it does not take an enormous amount of imagination to understand why a poor white man in a low-paying job might feel a little resentment at it.

Whilst ‘the system’ was delivering prosperity to large numbers of people in our society, its many flaws were tolerable and, to many, disguised, but when you reach a stage where an individual on an average income cannot afford to buy a house in most parts of the UK, and where ‘zero hours’ contracts are common, those defects are writ large: people work in order to have a decent life for themselves and for their children, and if work does not provide that, or the system does not provide work at all, then the problem is writ large. Add to that mix the anxieties caused by an economic slow-down and by large-scale immigration, and you get real problems; add to that a climate where to talk about such things gets you labelled as ‘racist’ and you get a toxicity which at some point was bound to infect the body politic, not least since its self-appointed physicians denied that the problems were real. When people feel ignored and scorned, they will look for redress – this is one of the things elections provide – and that this has now come to pass is clear. But, as in the UK in 1997 when a charismatic politician aroused great hopes, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating – and what President-elect Trump will have to deal with is a legacy not of his making, but which will restrict him in ways he will discover as he goes forward.

In the UK, it becomes ever clearer that our political class is so feckless that no one bothered to make any plans for what ‘Brexit’ would mean. Thus far Mrs May has been able to get away with the meaningless mantra that “Brexit means Brexit”, but at some point reality is going to intrude and she is going to have to show what that really means. She is a fortunate politician in that her main Tory rivals self-destructed, and she is facing the most hapless leader of the Labour Party since the 1930s. She may decide to risk a General Election if parliament will not give her what she needs, and she may well win it – but the problems will not go away.

Our democracies stand on a precipice, not because of the electorate, but because the professional political class is failing to show that it knows how to deal with the problems which afflict us.

Share this:

Like this:

‘In victory, magnanimity’, Churchill counselled. There are those on the Right who would say that having triumphed electorally, they should now give the Left a dose of its own medicine; but is that wise? If it was, at least in part, the festering resentment of so many at the way the Left behaved in power that sparked the Trump triumph and Brexit, is it really wise to behave in the way they behaved – and assume that the consequences will be different? Democracy is a hard school, one of its disciplines is to remember that one day the people you don’t agree with will be in power. I doubt, somehow, that many of those Democrats who approved Obama’s over-use of Presidential powers will be very keen on that tactic should President Trump go down the same route. By its nature, democracy is hostile to the idea of one party hegemony – which is why it is so often subverted by those who, finding themselves in power, think it would be a good idea for them to be there permanently. It is no such thing.

In the UK over the past four decades we have had two very long periods of one-party dominance – the results were good for neither the country, nor the part concerned. Both the Thatcher and the Blair governments did some things which, with a stronger opposition, they would not have done, and as the Tory defeat of 1997 and the more recent disintegration of Labour have shown, a long period in power can be followed by a long one in opposition. Churchill’s very long political career embraced both long periods in power and long ones out of it – so when he advised magnanimity, he spoke with wisdom from experience.

For a Christian there can be a difficulty here. If a party seems very hostile to our religion, should we not, goes the temptation, do whatever we can to keep it out of power? But we cannot do wrong in order to do what we think it right; down that slippery slope lies, at the end, something like a dictatorship – unless someone is of the view that it is possible to ensure that a programme of re-education can ensure that people will vote ‘the right way’; the Soviets tried that – and we know how that turned out.

The Church takes no particular view on which is the best political system – Caesar must get on with it. But it does take a view on what lies within God’s province and how Caesar ought to comport himself. So we have every right to take an active part in democratic politics – but no right to scream and shout and throw fire-bombs if the the result does not go our way. Does the electoral system sometimes throw up odd results? Yes. Do the people sometimes do something which seems very stupid? Yes. But that is part of the price we pay for living in a democracy. It is very dangerous that so many liberals seem to have taken the hump about recent events in the USA. What would they have said had their opponents behaved in the way they are now behaving? We should have heard much about the stupidity of the mob and the ignorance of the people – much as we do now from them. They appear not to be getting a quite simple message – which is that much of the electorate is fed up with being insulted and patronised. To carry on insulting and patronising them after you have lost seems colossally stupid – and surely, given the pride such people take in their education, they really ought to know better? Their attitude has already legitimised right-wing riots in the future – I think they should stop there and get on with using their superior expertise to show why they were right and their opponents were wrong. That’s what this democracy thing is all about – so can we just please get back to it?

Share this:

Like this:

Protesting against the result of a general election is something many of us have wanted to do. In 1997 I was utterly sure that Blair was a fraud and that his internationalist instincts would cause trouble. Gordon Brown stopped him taking the UK into the Euro, but no one stopped him backing a disastrous invasion of Iraq. That did not stop the country electing him twice more; now, many of those who voted for him thrice share the doubts I had in 1997. That gives me the right to say ‘told you so’ – but it did not give me the right in 1997 to set fire to anything, break windows or otherwise express my crossness that the electorate had been duped; but then I am a conservative and a pragmatist. So now, when I see people in the USA protesting, I ask myself what they hope to achieve? They have clearly forgotten that Trump has never been a Republican and that many Republicans did not like him. They are also ignoring the many reasons Americans voted for him. I couldn’t say that Trump was to my taste, and were I am American I should not have voted for him. But I would not throw my hands up and whine, still less would I demonstrate in the streets – what sort of example does that set?

So, a vulgarian, a man who has expressed racist and sexist views is President-elect? He shares these characteristics with many voters. Perhaps we should only have a democracy that allows people who share my world-view to vote? Oh, wait, that’s not democracy! Perhaps people with views I hate shouldn’t be allowed to be President or Prime Minister? Oh, wait, that’s not democracy! Or perhaps I should work harder with those who do think like me to persuade others we are right? What, get involved in that mucky business of canvassing and persuading the hoi-polloi? Yes, that’s what democracy is about. But the media is against me? Well it wasn’t exactly with Trump was it, but that didn’t stop him? Ah, but it takes money. Well, again, that might require getting your hand dirty and asking for or raising the stuff. Can’t be bothered with all that? So much easier then just to spout off and, when someone else wins the election, to act as though you are a small child whose ball has just been taken away. That, too, is democracy, of course, and people have a perfect right to protest – peacefully.

The sad fact is that the tone in which both the Brexit campaign here and the Presidential election in the USA were conducted has left a well of toxic matter in the body politic. There are reasons why election campaigns should not be conducted like internet trolling, and one of them is that afterwards, in a democracy, everyone has to get along. When any large section of the population feels not only offended, but frightened, this is not good for democracy. For the past few years it is those of us on the conservative and religious side of things who have felt threatened by the actions of government as it seems to have been determined to enforce its ideology of political-correctness on us whether we wanted it or not. Now liberals feel something similar in the USA. Perhaps both sides will now realise that pushing your agenda with total disregard for the consciences of others is not a good idea; democracy is not a zero-sum game.

No doubt, like all Presidents, Trump will encounter reality and come to terms with it. In the meantime, those who disagree with him should take time out and ponder why they failed. Mrs Clinton is said to blame the FBI. She should take a look in the mirror if she wants to see the real reason she failed. She gave every impression, as did many of her supporters, that she was entitled to become President; that is not democracy’s way. Politicians have given every impression of considering themselves an entitled class – the electorate has given its verdict on that. More humility and a better commitment to public service might be places to start. Whining about someone else winning is not the place to start. In victory, Trump would be wise to adopt Churchill’s motto of ‘magnanimity’.

Share this:

Like this:

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote here in the UK, what Mrs May called the ‘liberal metropolitan elite discovered how little its members disliked direct democracy; it is one thing to be in the vanguard leading the people, but quite another to be in the guard’s van being led by them. It seems as though we shall be seeing a repeat of this in the USA where the people have gone and ignored the advice of their self-appointed betters and elected Donald J Trump. The number of times the BBC have mentioned that he has no political experience suggests the Corporation still does not understand the phenomenon with which it is dealing.

Mrs Clinton had plenty of political experience, and yet it did not stop her from shooting herself in both feet and them complaining about having to limp. She and her advisers have known for nearly a decade that she used a private email server when she was Secretary of State; had they put as much effort into trying to explain why and what the results were as they have put into trying to spin the story, Mrs Clinton would have been much better placed – and the narrative that she was liar who could not be trusted would have been deprived of one of its main sources of evidence. If political experience doesn’t suggest you avoid this sort of problem and this kind of handling of it, people are quite entitled to wonder what its use is. Similarly, no one made her take large fees from Wall Street bankers and thus identify herself with the architects of the crash of 2008; she did that all by herself. No one made her try to major as a champion of women sho had suffered sexual abuse, she did that all on her own – whilst still being married to ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton. No one made her talk about ordinary people as ‘deplorables’, that was clearly exactly how she thinks of many of then; they have reciprocated by coming out to vote against her. That a retired POTUS should live decently is one thing, that he should become a multi-millionaire is another; ask Mr Blair about the same phenomenon with ex Prime Ministers.

‘We the people’ seem to have tired of the professional political class who seem to despise the voters who don’t agree with their liberal social views. The problem with being a professional politician is you do need to win votes, and from the get-go Trump has shown he is better at this than those who have spent their lives in politics. Whether he can make a better fist of governing remains to be seen. The out-going POTUS was a one term Senator who had a background in community organising; the next one is a businessman who is used to cutting deals. It’s unclear if Trump has any settled political views beyond being fiscally conservative and socially quite liberal. I’m old enough to recall the pundits predicting Armageddon when that actor chappie got elected in place of the peanut farmer. He turned out to have a good eye for who to put into executive positions and then went off golfing – much like a more recent incumbent (at least on the golfing side).

President-elect Trump has called for unity – among his liberal opponents there is that unity – they are united in shock at what the people just went and did. They need top get over themselves and cut deals with the man who wrote the book on it.

A confession. Like most people in the UK, I cannot take a man called Trump seriously. In this part of the world it is a euphemism for breaking wind – you might as well be ‘The Donald J Fart’. Mind you, given the amount of noxious hot air the fellow gives out, the name may be appropriate. He appears to have no control over what comes out of his mouth, so it was fun when motor mouth mogul confronted Rambling Pope Frank. Who really knows what Frank says? There’s always someone to explain it wasn’t what it looks like. He seems to have suggested that if Trump wanted to build walls, that made him no Christian. Trump exploded that there is a wall round the Vatican, and that he felt insulted. I was quite enjoying it, and then suddenly it went away.

There is little point in quoting what either man has said in the past, as they have both realised that in a 24/7 media, no one really cares, but it is interesting that the Pope seems to think he could come to a judgment about whether someone is a Christian. I can see where he’s coming from – looking after the poor and the dispossessed is quite high up on the list of things Jesus values in his followers, and he says nothing about building walls to keep them out. Mind, nor does he say anything about economic migrants. On that theme, are there any other sort? Am I wrong in thinking that, with the possible exception of the Native Americans, and the definite exception of the slaves, everyone else in the USA is descended from those who were ‘economic migrants’? If only the original inhabitants of Manhattan Island had thought of Green Cards, they might still be masters of their own land. Mind, again, if that is your example, I can see why you’d be worried.

Most ordinary folk know something has gone wrong with our societies. Those of my generation grew up in an era of social mobility – that a lad from my background to go to university at all was unusual in the previous generation, but not quite so much in mine. Now, it seems to have stuck. Some already rich people (remind me someone where Trump’s money came from?) have got richer; most of us don’t feel we have, or that our children are going to be better off than we were. In a society weaned on materialism, this really matters – after all, what other sort of yardstick exists in it? It is not as though our societies value other things. If an ‘illegal immigrant’ is going to ‘take your job’, then there’s nothing most folk have been taught that says we should look after those who have less than we do. Trump taps into the anger, and the rhetoric, he is the perfect exemplar of a society which knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

He and Pope Frank were probably motor-mouthing past each other – but at least the latter was saying something Jesus might have said. As for Trump – hot air with a noxious smell.

Share this:

Like this:

However hard I have tried this week, only not looking at news sites or listening to the radio or buying newspapers could I avoid the two names which are the title of this posting. The initial letter of their names apart, they have only one thing in common: they have expressed views which run contrary to the moral sensibilities of the commentariat which has led to cries that they be ‘banned’. Once, it might have served a purpose to point out the irony of people in favour of free speech wanting to ban others for freely expressing their views, but I have a sense we’ve moved past that now. Those who want to ban Trump and Tyson do not believe in free speech, and many of them make no pretence; they are full-blown censors who want to ban ideas. That, at this stage of our history, we have to point to the futility of trying to ban ideas, is a topic for another day, perhaps; here I want to concentrate on the two men.

Donald J Trump, as he likes to call himself (when I were a lad talking about yourself in the third person was thought be a clear sign that something wasn’t right) was born into privilege in the richest, freest and most dynamic country in the world; he enjoyed the best education money could buy, and remains, as he tells us, a billionaire. There is nothing new in rich men giving money to politicians, nor in their thinking they could do a better job. Aristotle warned of the dangers of demagoguery, and to see a rich, well-educated man pandering to the prejudices of the masses has about itself something distasteful. He has one point, and it is a point democratic leaders across the globe would do well to ponder, and it is this: our leaders are badly out of touch with the views of many of those they govern, and as a result, faith in democracy is slipping away. I doubt it has gone far enough to let Trump be President – but it is a sign, an omen, of what could be to come if our leaders do not take heed. Banning him from the UK is not going to happen, and if it does, then our leaders will be playing to another set of prejudices, which are not so called because they are fashionable among the commentariat.

Tyson Fury, by contrast, was born to poverty and exclusion as a member of a persecuted minority which it is now fashionable to call Travellers, but which when I were a lad were called ‘Gypsies’. He received the sort of education those born where he was born received – which is to say none to speak of. Born to poverty and struggle, he took a route common among men in such circumstances – he took to boxing. His fists have brought him fortune and fame. They also brought him to the attention of a commentariat which would have been happy to have patronised him and feted him, had it not been for one simple fact. Tyson Fury is a born-again Christian, whose views on things the commentariat approve of – homosexuality and women’s place is society – are those to be expected of one from his background. When he spoke of homosexuality, paedophilia and abortion having to be ‘accomplished’, tone-deaf critics accused him of comparing the three and sought to demonise him. They called for him to be prosecuted and withdrawn from some BBC programme designed, so it claims, to celebrate sporting achievement. Was Mr Fury from an underprivileged and deprived background with no education? None of this was any excuse for him having views so unfashionable.

What he was talking about, of course, was the sort of apocalyptic events our own Bosco loves to mention – the end times. What he was trying to say was that all these bad thing would have to be accomplished before the Lord came again. People whose ignorance of apocalyptic thinking had no excuse other than their own inattention to education, rushed to judge one with every excuse for a poor eduction. That is unedifying, and as much a display of bigotry as the one they accuse Mr Fury of.

What an unpleasant, censorious and self-righteous lot the commentariat are. Now if only Mr Fury had claimed he self-identified as a woman, he’d have been a shoo-in for Sports Personality of the Year.

Trump and Tyson are in so many ways Alpha and Omega, but they provide a health-check on the commitment of our society to free speech which is turning to flashing red. No doubt some will suppose that in not condemning Mr Fury, I am condoning his views. To those I invite a more careful reading, and a short course in apocalyptic thinking – it might even stop them tweeting for a few moments.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris